Mailing List Archive: 49091 messages
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search

[REBOL] Re: read ftp:// error

From: gjones05:mail:orion at: 2-Jun-2001 8:48

Sports Announcer's Voice: ... Volker makes a long lob of the volley ball. It's headed to the back of the court. Scott, who had been guarding the net, suddenly finds he's running to the back of the court. Will he be able to get there in time? ... From: "Volker Nitsch"
> i'm very reluctant to suggest this, after all our > clever injection stuff, :) > but maybe using the molded source is the safest thing?
I have gone back and forth on this issue. There seem to be benefits and drawbacks to both, and I suspect it would get down to personal preferences. I guess I don't feel strongly about it one way or another.
> We can have version-check with > 1234 = probe checksum mold ftp > > we can create patcher with parsing the source, > instead of stepping through blocks. > (Ok, not really needed.)
But, the idea of having a source-parsing, patch generator is really a neat idea in the long run. I'm sure it will be needed more than once ... at least until /Core 3.0, which we all know will be perfect!!!
> we can rename the patched protocol, have original ftp:// > and patched-ftp:// parallel then. > (Hm, a 'make would do this too.) > > after that we write a %patched-ftp.r to be called by %user.r > (more overhead.. but) > this should be mostly version-safe?
Yes, I thought about this also. It was what I did on the ESMTP scheme. But on this mini-project for Thorsten, I suspected that a more transparent approach might provide more utility. Again, I can see benefits and drawbacks to both approaches.
> ok, gets pretty long now. maybe simply posting full source ;-) > but the [probe checksum] is clever, yes? ;-) (hope it works > everywhere..)
I think the checksum is very clever. It could serve as yet another double check. If a scheme has already been patched elsewhere, like Brett mentioned, then this double check would be sure and not mess up a patched version. Very interesting...
> -Volker > }
Uh, oh. I just realized that there is code included. I'm out of time (need to run errands). I'll look over your code later. Sorry. Neat ideas, Volker. From the many things that you contribute to the list, I can see that you are a person that regularly thinks "outside of the box." This is a Good Thing. Thanks. --Scott Jones